Comments by Brian Shilhavy, Health Impact News Editor: I have been investigating and covering the topic of vaccines for over a decade now, and know the topic so well that seldom, if ever, can I find anyone to carry on an intelligent conversation about the topic.
The controversial topic of vaccines in the U.S. today is primarily a topic about beliefs, and people's trust in vaccines resembles a religious belief, not an informed opinion based on the facts.
I am not sure in all of my years in covering this very important and very controversial topic, that I have ever found a literary treatise on the subject as eloquent and comprehensive as this piece just put together by Barbara Loe Fisher, the founder of the National Vaccine Information Center.
Revolutions that have changed the course of history have begun on lesser documents and exposés than what Barbara has written here, and I am not exaggerating.
When discussing the topic of vaccines, the religious-like faith of those who put their trust in them usually starts out with a statement like: "When it comes to vaccines, the science is settled."
This statement in and of itself is intrinsically unscientific, and is simply used to avoid debate and censor any information contrary to the religious-like beliefs so many hold about vaccines.
Fisher correctly points out how our modern day culture has come to worship "science," but it is a very perverted form of true science.
Fisher does an excellent job also of documenting the history of "eugenics," which was born in American intellectualism and made notorious by Hitler in Nazi Germany to justify horrible atrocities.
As we have reported here at Health Impact News, while the term "eugenics" has become unpopular, the ideas it represents have never left American culture - they have just been "repackaged" and are the same arguments used today for forced vaccination as they were used in the past for forced sterilization.

Amidst the ever changing, controversial white waters of vaccine safety, parents who choose natural immunity are being targeted by certain members of the medical, legal and public health communities as being guilty of medical neglect.
As readers of Health Impact News' MedicalKidnap.com website are fully aware, "medical neglect" is a broad term frequently used against parents who dare to disagree with doctors over the healthcare of their children, and can result in Child Protective Services (CPS) taking the children away from their families by force.
The latest example of this usurping of parental rights, which is being pushed and orchestrated by vaccine extremists who insist on pushing a one-size-fits-all approach to immunity, appears in the February edition of ​the ​American Journal of Public​ Health, in an article entitled "Parental Refusal of Childhood Vaccines and Medical Neglect Laws.”
The paper, authored by Efthimios Parasidis, JD, M.BE, and Douglas J. Opel, MD, MPH, sets out to examine court cases where vaccine refusal is categorized as "medical neglect" under child welfare laws.

There are new U.S. government rules that can force travelers into quarantine or isolation if they are suspected of having a contagious disease. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published their revised rules explaining how they will intervene to protect the public from the spread of quarantinable communicable diseases such as Ebola.
For those of us who prefer to minimize our contact with the conventional medical care system and its pharmaceutical products, these new rules should cause us to carefully consider our health status when traveling across state lines or traveling back to the United States during a CDC health emergency. If we have symptoms of illness that might be confused with a communicable disease, then it might be wise to carefully consider our travel plans.
The rules were released on the last day of the Obama Administration, 1/19/2017, and will take effect on February 21, 2017.
Under these rules, if a CDC medical professional examines and quarantines you under a public health order, certain medical procedures, such as mandatory vaccinations, could be required as a condition of your release.

When does the State have the right to remove children from a home where they are living with their parents?
We have been covering medical kidnapping stories now on MedicalKidnap.com for over a year. This website was started to document the many stories that were coming to our attention where families were losing their children to the State, and the foster care system, over medical disagreements. In many of these cases, their children were taken away simply because they disagreed with a doctor, or wanted to take their children to a different doctor to get a second opinion.
Does the State have a right to take children away from parents for what is now being called "medical abuse," a term used by medical authorities when parents disagree with doctors, or want to seek a second opinion? Most of the people who follow MedicalKidnap would state "no." And we have published many stories now showing that this is indeed happening all across the country, in every state, every single day.
But what about in other situations? Are there any situations where authorities should step in and remove children from their homes, taking them away from their parents?
Judging from comments made in social media from many commenting on some of our articles, I think it is safe to assume that the majority of people in the United States today feel that in certain situations, the State has a legitimate right to step in and take children away from their families, removing them from their homes.
However, I would like to suggest that the Constitution of the United States of America protects the rights of individuals and families, and that it is never lawful for social services to remove a child from their biological parents, taking them out of their home and making them a ward of the State, removing legal custody from their parents. This phenomena is a recent development in the history of our country, and if it is not lawful to take such actions, we are correct in calling such actions "state-funded kidnappings."

The Fourth Amendment strikes a carefully crafted balance between a family’s right to privacy and the government’s need to enforce the law. In most situations, government agents cannot simply force their way into a home. Instead, they must explain to a neutral magistrate why they need to enter the home, and they must provide real evidence to support that need. This rule applies to all government agents. Court after court has agreed that there is no social services exception to the Fourth Amendment.
All too often, law enforcement officers and child-welfare workers act as if the Fourth Amendment does not apply to CPS investigations.
They are wrong.

In a case bearing several similarities to Justina Pelletier's family's experience with Boston Children's Hospital, and Isaiah Rider's family's experience with Lurie Children's Hospital in Chicago, 10 and 12 year old sisters have been seized by Phoenix Children's Hospital over a medical dispute. The mother has reportedly been ordered to not discuss the case with anyone, and has been forced to take down YouTube videos and a Facebook Page with over 3000 followers that was documenting the actions of Child Protection Services and doctors at Phoenix Children's Hospital.
Kayla and Hannah Diegel suffer from congenital disorder of glycosylation, (CDG, a form of mitochondrial disease.) Part of their condition is also suffering with "Gastroparesis," which is a partially paralyzed stomach.

The right to legal counsel, your Miranda rights, and the right to a speedy jury trial are American rights protected by our Constitution. But not in family court, where a single judge can decide whether or not you are a fit parent. Child Protection Services (CPS) has more power today than the police, sheriff, or FBI, as they can come into your home and remove your child without a search warrant or court order.
Someone who doesn't like you, for any reason, can make a phone call and provide an anonymous “tip” with the result of you losing your children. Doctors you disagree with can call CPS and have your child removed from your home with no search warrant or court order, by simply reporting you to CPS. This is in fact happening all across America to thousands of families. It is time to put a stop to this.

Despite prosecutors’ second attempt this year to bring criminal charges against Detroit mother Maryanne Godboldo, who underwent a 10 hour stand off with police for refusing to administer a powerful antipsychotric drug to her daughter, Wayne County District Judge Gregory Bill has become the second judge this year to dismiss the charges.

Justina Pelletier has been held in custody against her will, and against the will of her family, for over a year, simply because a group of doctors at Boston Children's Hospital disagreed with her diagnosis by her physician at Tuft's Medical Center. Justina's family was referred to some specialists at Boston Children's Hospital regarding her condition, mitochondrial disease, but instead a different set of doctors intervened and said her condition as psychological. When the parents disagreed, they were escorted by security out of the hospital and ended up losing custody of their daughter who was originally confined to a psychiatric ward at the hospital.
Justina herself is never present at court hearings where Judge Joseph Johnston has refused to return her custody to her parents, so her voice in the matter is never heard. Her family recorded the above video so people can hear Justina's voice in the matter.

Congressman Steve Stockman will introduce legislation cutting off funds to medical institutions that conduct greater than minimal risk research on wards of the state, deny First Amendment rights to parents and wards of the state, and take children away from their parents over disagreements on subjective diagnoses.
Such medical institutions include the National Institute of Health, state agencies, medical facilities, and hospitals. This bill would direct the Inspector General of Health and Human Services to withhold funds from these institutions for the aforementioned reasons. The story of Justina Pelletier, who has mitochondrial disease and was declared a ward of the state over a custody battle regarding a subjective psychotropic drug diagnosis, motivated Congressman Stockman to introduce the legislation.